A's Need Better Pitching, Not Hitting

by SA on Oct 23, 2004 10:22 AM PDT

While much of AN discussion the past few weeks has focused on the need to improve the offense, particularly by trading Mulder, Zito, Blanton, etc. for a big bat, some stats may indicate that what the A's need to do is improve their pitching, not their hitting.

If everyone is back from last year and Swisher produces about the same as Dye, which is certainly possible, then the A's should score about the same number of runs in 2005 as in 2004. In fact, compared to other years, it appears A's run production was not the problem in 2004. The problem was the runs allowed. Let's look at the last four years.

In 2004, the A's scored 793 runs, which was 25 runs better than in 2003, and only 7 worse than in 2002. Yet the A's won 96 games in 2003 and 103 games in 2002 but only won 91 games in 2004.

The reason? Look at opponents runs scored: In 2004, the A's gave up nearly 100 runs more than the team did in 2003 (and 2001), and 88 more runs than in 2002. This doesn't factor in fielding but it appeared that the A's fielding overall was perhaps better in 2004 than in previous years.

Of course, it would be great to score 884 runs as the team did in 2001, but to increase run production by making trades that would likely translate into allowing more opponent runs scored in 2005 than even in 2004 would probably not help the team.

Folks can comment on what they think these stats mean. One reasonable conclusion is that Billy Beane might want to take the more controversial course of NOT making a big trade for a power hitter and concentrate almost exclusively on bolstering the pitching staff. I know that may not be the popular view but it appears that would be a reasonable course.

    A's Runs     Opponents Runs
2004     793        742
2003    768        643
2002    800        654
2001    884        645

A's Record
2004 91-71
2003 96-66
2002 103-59
2001 102-60

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The obvious

There is no denying that the A's need better pitching from their starters and bullpen. The bullpen should be the A's #1 priority. But I do not believe the A's lineup, as it is now, will hit as well next year as it did this year. You're putting a lot of hope in Swisher and I'd prefer to take some of that burden off his shoulders and spread it elsewhere.

by grover on Oct 23, 2004 10:46 AM PDT reply actions

Runs Allowed

Those runs allowed stats are pretty damning. Consider the A's had their best defense last year in their four year run. The bullpen was torture to watch most of the time but the starters were not getting the job done as in the last few years and the offense was not good enough to compensate.

by oscarwdog on Oct 23, 2004 10:51 AM PDT reply actions

Pitching

I think Mulder will rebound but Zito has leveled off. The bullpen needs to be rebuilt from the closer down.

Better pitching will help, but so would more offense. The A's best trading chips are it's starting pitchers. Trade one of the Big 3 to strengthen elsewhere.

by grover on Oct 23, 2004 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

Best defense??

Kotsay was an improvement-- I'll grant you. But Crosby and Scutaro were clearly not the equivalent of Tejada and Ellis. And with Chavez missing 6 weeks and then slumping defensively down the stretch-- as did Hatteberg-- the infield defesne left something to be desired.

That said, the overall point is a good one, and the starters were the most culpable, as the A's lost runs compared to 2003 at every starting position save Harden.

paul m

by paul m on Oct 23, 2004 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions

And when mcLemore played 2B

The defense slipped even further.

paul m

by paul m on Oct 23, 2004 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions

Ah, yes!

That Ellis to Tejada double play was a work of art. They used to even get Ichiro with it once in awhile. I'm really predjudiced but when Ellis, Tejada, and Chavez got hot on defense, they were the best that ever was and probably saved a run a game.

by steve g on Oct 23, 2004 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Swisher

I think you should expect Swisher to have a more-Crosby like year than a Dye-like year. You can't expect a rookie to come in and hit like a 10 year veteran.

If it happens, I'll eat my baseball glove.

by juan on Oct 23, 2004 11:09 AM PDT reply actions

What is a Dye Year?

Spending half or more of it not contributing cause he is on the bench with injuries?

Look at the teams in the playoffs and the series. They all have plenty of power in their lineup. The game has become a hitters game.

by bayfrank on Oct 23, 2004 11:25 AM PDT reply actions

I dunno...

Good pitching can still get it done, I'd hate to take this year and make it the year where the rule, because it seems like more of an exception for me. Even though a mediocre-good pitcher like Brandon Backe or Jose Lima CAN shut down a lineup like the Cardinals, imagine a Randy Johnson not buried in Arizona's impact. The problem is that each of the pitching stars seemed to have their own flaws-- Astros Oswalt and Clemens had to pitch on fewer days of rest because of their 5-series with Atlanta (if they could have started Oswalt/Clemens, they probably had St. Louis right there) Pedro's become unpredictable, Schilling's hurt, and everyone on the Braves, Dodgers, Cardinals and Yankees don't qualify for dominant pitching. Johan Santana won Game 1 and it wasn't his fault they lost Game 4, remember.

But as for upgrading the pitching, what can we do? Bullpen may get somewhat of a facelift, but what can we do about starting pitching? There's no way we can bid with the other teams for a FA starter (besides, if Pedro and Carl Pavano are the highlight names, I don't know if I want to bid for them), as so many teams need pitching, it may be hard to find someone at Redman's level, let alone someone who can ascend to Big Three status. I think we're best off hoping for a rebound (especially if Mulder was hurt, he'll have the offseason to rehab) from Mulder, a full year from Hudson, continued improvement from Harden and the like to carry our staff.

Personally, I think Billy should just go for the best deal, be it a good position player (I was toying with sneaking in for Lowell thoughts, but we don't need 2 third basemen :P) or pitcher. I just think position player is more likely, as there is a surplus of hitting and the A's actually have a lot more areas where they could get a good, solid bat (LF, RF, maybe 1B, C, 2B are all areas where we don't have young/star talent) whereas our starting rotation has a lot more possibility for a rebound. Just my thought.

by Trocmagic on Oct 23, 2004 2:36 PM PDT reply actions

2001

Looking at those numbers, what really struck me was how awesome that team was.

Fucking Jeremy Giambi, fat, slow, no-slide piece of shit.

by jmoney on Oct 23, 2004 5:02 PM PDT reply actions

HEY!

Don't blame Jeremy for being slow. He was born that way.

Crucify him all you want for not sliding.

by grover on Oct 23, 2004 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually, I do blame him for being slow.

Do you remember the next year, when Jeremy came out of spring training as our leadoff hitter? All the stories that were written about how he was really working on his conditioning, his defense was improved, etc.?

All I could think was, Jeremy, if you had bothered to live up to your professional responsibilities and gotten into good shape LAST YEAR, you'd have had enough gas to score that damn run. You wouldn't have had to slide, either, because you'd have had the play beat. I wouldn't be sentenced to seeing that goddamn play 7000 times on Fox and ESPN, and you wouldn't have had your career defined, Bill-Buckner style, by one ignominious video clip.

by Faust on Oct 25, 2004 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions

The Mummy

Art Howe should have pinch ran Byrnes for him; he would have scored before Jeter even got that lucky ass bad throw.
Then the next game Howe starts Santangelo instead of Frankie at second, who makes an error on a double play ball that allows two early unearned runs which freaks Lidle out.
In the bottom of the first of that game, Jason had either runners on 2nd. and 3rd. or 1st. and 3rd. with no outs and popped out. That was big too. Later we lose Dye on the broken leg pitch from El Duque.....
That team was great. I'll never forget how Hudson went after Jeter's hands in Yankee Stadium and just terrified him.

by steve g on Oct 24, 2004 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

On SA's point

SA is on to something. Run differential is important, but it's exponentially better to have the same run differential with lower totals (lower runs scored and runs allowed) than with higher totals.

i.e., it's MUCH better to score 700 and allow 600 than to score 800 and allow 700.

That's why pitching is more valuable than hitting, and you don't win by constructing your team to favor hitting over pitching. Although Boston and St. Louis might look like hitting-dominant teams, below the surface, they both received excellent performances from their bullpen and starters in 2004.

by Adam @ Athletics Nation on Oct 23, 2004 10:46 PM PDT reply actions

Excellent point

It's not the raw difference in numbers, but the percentage difference.

As fundamental as that insight is, I for one hadn't thought about it before.

Thanks, Adam. Best post I've seen on AN in weeks.

by monkeyball on Oct 24, 2004 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Gee

Sorry everyone's let you down.

by grover on Oct 24, 2004 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Foulke

After all the blown saves this year, it hurts to watch Foulke do his thing in the postseason. Who got to him in last year's playoffs? David Ortiz, but he gets everybody. Foulke is SO good. Great control, doesn't get rattled, doesn't give in. In game 6 against the Yankees, he walked two, but that was because he wouldn't give in and groove one. You knew he'd take care of Tony Clark.

I hope Billy can come up with somebody. To me, Dotel should be a set-up man. Unless he can really master a good breaking ball and not throw the fastball right down the middle. And is he going to do this at age 30?

by jschreib59 on Oct 24, 2004 7:36 AM PDT reply actions

Athletics' needs in 2005

Personally, I believe the two weaknesses are the bullpen and timely hitting. Beane must bring in some additional hard throwing arms. Also, lets get some players that can hit in crucial times in games. Time and time again the A's would either pop up or dribble little grounders.
Swede

by swede on Oct 24, 2004 11:53 AM PDT reply actions

A's 2005 Needs

Very well presented argument on needing pitching and not hitting. I agree that the A's need pitching. The bull pen needs to be rebuilt. However, as I read the article a couple other ideas came to mind.

First, Durazo and Hatteberg had career years. Can we realistically assume they will put up those kind of numbers next year. Furthermore, even with their career years I do not think they struck fear into opposing pitchers. Seems like Chavez was pitched around quite frequently.

Another idea, which could pay off huge dividends at little expense: Does anyone know if the A's employ a psychologist or therapist? If someone could have helped Zito and Mulder keep their heads straight this year we would probably be wondering which one was starting Game 3 of the World Series at this point.

One more question. How many of you would be willing to gamble on a World Series the next couple years at the risk of being terrible for a while after that? That is, can ownership shell out some cash for some bullpen help and hitting while we still have all these great starters together.

by steeraw on Oct 25, 2004 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions